Sundar Katwala from the think-tank British Future was allocated a
column of commentary in two full pages of yesterday's Observer that
discussed issues around immigration http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jan/13/immigration-diversity-state-of-nation
"Nobody is complaining" says Tracy McVeigh fatuously (who would they complain to? - they can only complain to politicians and they will either ignore you or call you a bigot).
There is so much woolly thinking in Mr Katwala's column that it would take a considerable amount of time to address everything.
But I do wish to examine one point he makes:
"...a multi-ethnic and multi-faith Britain is an ineradicable fact" he tells us. "It ain't gonna change" Bonnie Greer said when discussing immigration on Newsnight (raising her voice as she did so, indicating she was trying to convince herself as much as convince us). Mission accomplished, as President Bush might say.
Let us leave on one side the fact that post-war immigration is founded on an injustice (the setting aside of the democratic will of the majority), and that a society built on an injustice cannot endure.
Let us just focus on the proclaimed ineradicability of multi-ethnic, multi-faith populations.
Is this supported by the historical record?
I would suggest it is not. There might be less anxiety about post-war immigration could anyone point to a happy, stable multi-ethnic multi-faith society in the world today (the best you could hope for is Canada, and that is not an example that would inspire any indigenous peoples). Here is a very brief overview of multi-ethnic multi-faith societies over the last hundred years:
1920s - the multi-ethnic multi-faith society in Turkey was eradicated following the 1922 war with Greece, and the Greek and Jewish populations who had lived alongside their Muslim Turkish neighbours for centuries were expelled (or worse).
1930s - the multi-ethnic multi-faith society in southern Ireland was eradicated (via burnings, shootings, boycotts etc) as Eamonn de Valera reversed centuries of English Protestant immigration into Catholic Ireland.
1940s - the long-standing multi-ethnic multi-faith society in Poland was eradicated in circumstances too infamous to need detailing.
1950s - the multi-ethnic multi-faith society in Egypt was eradicated following the events of 1956, and Greek, Jewish and other communities that had lived in the area for millennia were expelled.
1960s - the multi-ethnic multi-faith society in Zanzibar was eradicated and the Arab and Indian populations destroyed in a now forgotten act of genocide.
1970s - the multi-ethnic multi-faith society in Uganda was eradicated by the expulsion policies of the Ugandan government.
1980s - the multi-ethnic multi-faith society in Zimbabwe was eradicated as a consequence of the Africanisation policies of Robert Mugabe.
1990s - the multi-ethnic multi-faith society in Bosnia and Herzegovina was eradicated.
2000s - the multi-ethnic multi-faith society in Iraq was largely eradicated in what can only be described as a war of unintended consequences.
And today? Burma is carrying out a process of eradication against the Rohingya (with the apparent complicity of secular saint Aung San Suu Kyi). Fiji is an unhappy land that has already experienced convulsions. Israel-Palestine hardly needs any comment. Syria is an on-going crisis. Northern Ireland appears to be experiencing a process of cultural cleansing.
Of course, I am aware that a marxist historian could take each of these examples and "prove" they are the result of capitalist exploitation of the workers, the legacy of imperialism etc.
But there is enough in the historical record to allow us to say that Sundar Katwala is not justified in his claim about ineradicability - sooner or later, in a moment of national crisis and breakdown, one group of people will attempt the eradication of another group.
The only sure way of avoiding this is through an overt policy of assimilation. But assimilation is not even being considered. We are not even considering integration with any degree of seriousness.
In the bland words of Tracy McVeigh "no-one's complaining" therefore let's do nothing.
"Nobody is complaining" says Tracy McVeigh fatuously (who would they complain to? - they can only complain to politicians and they will either ignore you or call you a bigot).
There is so much woolly thinking in Mr Katwala's column that it would take a considerable amount of time to address everything.
But I do wish to examine one point he makes:
"...a multi-ethnic and multi-faith Britain is an ineradicable fact" he tells us. "It ain't gonna change" Bonnie Greer said when discussing immigration on Newsnight (raising her voice as she did so, indicating she was trying to convince herself as much as convince us). Mission accomplished, as President Bush might say.
Let us leave on one side the fact that post-war immigration is founded on an injustice (the setting aside of the democratic will of the majority), and that a society built on an injustice cannot endure.
Let us just focus on the proclaimed ineradicability of multi-ethnic, multi-faith populations.
Is this supported by the historical record?
I would suggest it is not. There might be less anxiety about post-war immigration could anyone point to a happy, stable multi-ethnic multi-faith society in the world today (the best you could hope for is Canada, and that is not an example that would inspire any indigenous peoples). Here is a very brief overview of multi-ethnic multi-faith societies over the last hundred years:
1920s - the multi-ethnic multi-faith society in Turkey was eradicated following the 1922 war with Greece, and the Greek and Jewish populations who had lived alongside their Muslim Turkish neighbours for centuries were expelled (or worse).
1930s - the multi-ethnic multi-faith society in southern Ireland was eradicated (via burnings, shootings, boycotts etc) as Eamonn de Valera reversed centuries of English Protestant immigration into Catholic Ireland.
1940s - the long-standing multi-ethnic multi-faith society in Poland was eradicated in circumstances too infamous to need detailing.
1950s - the multi-ethnic multi-faith society in Egypt was eradicated following the events of 1956, and Greek, Jewish and other communities that had lived in the area for millennia were expelled.
1960s - the multi-ethnic multi-faith society in Zanzibar was eradicated and the Arab and Indian populations destroyed in a now forgotten act of genocide.
1970s - the multi-ethnic multi-faith society in Uganda was eradicated by the expulsion policies of the Ugandan government.
1980s - the multi-ethnic multi-faith society in Zimbabwe was eradicated as a consequence of the Africanisation policies of Robert Mugabe.
1990s - the multi-ethnic multi-faith society in Bosnia and Herzegovina was eradicated.
2000s - the multi-ethnic multi-faith society in Iraq was largely eradicated in what can only be described as a war of unintended consequences.
And today? Burma is carrying out a process of eradication against the Rohingya (with the apparent complicity of secular saint Aung San Suu Kyi). Fiji is an unhappy land that has already experienced convulsions. Israel-Palestine hardly needs any comment. Syria is an on-going crisis. Northern Ireland appears to be experiencing a process of cultural cleansing.
Of course, I am aware that a marxist historian could take each of these examples and "prove" they are the result of capitalist exploitation of the workers, the legacy of imperialism etc.
But there is enough in the historical record to allow us to say that Sundar Katwala is not justified in his claim about ineradicability - sooner or later, in a moment of national crisis and breakdown, one group of people will attempt the eradication of another group.
The only sure way of avoiding this is through an overt policy of assimilation. But assimilation is not even being considered. We are not even considering integration with any degree of seriousness.
In the bland words of Tracy McVeigh "no-one's complaining" therefore let's do nothing.
4 comments:
Andrew,
Thanks for your response and critique. I don't see how the multi-ethnic nature of British society and citizenship could be eradicated, nor how this could be attempted, except by extreme and catastrophic means which the vast majority of people would find repulsive.
Hence I argue that those who embrace change and diversity *and* those who fear it is damaging should accept a common and shared responsibility to make sure our society works.
Very few if any of the societies you cite would be considered democratic, while democracy
Your comment was truncated Mr Katwala, and so I am not sure about the point you were making about democracy.
As I have pointed out, major eradications of multi-ethnic and multi-religious societies have taken place on average once per decade, and there is no indication that this historical trend has stopped.
However you might be right in suggesting that the United Kingdom will be a unique exception to this trend. A "new paradigm" I think the expression is. Let us hope you are right as no-one wants to see even the mild sort of breakdown that we are witnessing in Northern Ireland.
However I would point out to you three points that you seem oblivious of:
1 Post-war mass immigration has been entirely against the wishes of the majority and has created massive social change that very few people wanted - it would help if you could at least acknowledge this point.
2 It has placed British society in a position of risk that it need not otherwise have been in.
3 There seems to be no political will to bring the process to a stop, despite every test of opinion, including that of your own organisation, saying that people do not want it.
As you suggest, perhaps things might turn out alright in the end, but wishing and hoping of this kind is not a sound basis for public policy.
Thank you for the response. My question would be: "Is there any way in which Britain could become a mono-ethnic society which would not be catastrophic, and which would reflect the values or wishes of the British people?".
One thought behind "ineradicable" is that British would not choose to try to embark on that course of reversing the diversity which has become part of who we are.
Not making that choice in say 1948 made it much harder to make it later. I can not see how it could be made now - and would worry what the approach to people like me (Irish and Indian parents, British-born citizen, 1974) or my children would be.
I suspect the diversity of Britain was largely ineradicable by 1968; and was certainly so by 1990. Indeed, I would perhaps surprise you by drawing on Enoch Powell to offer some evidence for this. In the less famous Eastbourne 1968 speech, made six months after the famous Birmingham speech, where he is arguing that repatriation has become more important than immigration control; that this is urgent as it will be impossible after the mid-1980s, when he correctly projects that the majority of immigrant-descended populations will be British-born citizens; and that in any event, even if his policy is adopted, the 1.25 million new Commonwealth population is likely to prove a minimum (which he regrets; and hopes may eventually be absorbed over many generations). My view is that many many fewer people agreed with Powell on repatriation than on immigration control, he was arguing that avoiding what he called "the haunting tragedy of the United States" depended more on repatriation than immigration control. He was, I think, right about that. You will appreciate I disagree with his overall view of these issues, but his numerical projections were usually very accurate.
That thought could be compatible with a view that the history was a story of betrayal, as your 3 questions would portray it. For example, if you also seek to avoid the breakdown you fear, we have that in common, even if we were to disagree about the chances of a catastrophic breakdown. I accept that we should work to ensure that is the case, not cross our fingers.
To address the three questions ...
1. Up to a point. I think you overstate the claim, but it would not be right to try to dismiss it entirely either. I agree there was anxiety about immigration and some vocal opposition to it. The evidence we have suggests a majority preference for lower numbers than we had. I don't know of any evidence that people wanted no immigration, or almost no immigration. Perhaps you have a source for this.
2. There is certainly no support for trying to eradicate the ethnic diversity of modern Britain. Perhaps some regret that, while agreeing it is too late for a non-authoritarian approach to that. Most are more positive than that. Eg, by 75% to 8%, people told Ipsos-Mori that the Olympics show we are "a confident multi-ethnic society".
3. There is no political will to stop immigration. There is only minority public support for that too (about 1 in 4). There is public support for reducing numbers (about 3 in 4), and the current government are trying to reflect that. People are fairly equally divided between those who want small reductions/current numbers versus large reductions. Majorities want reductions in some areas, and most oppose reductions in some other areas. I wrote a blog offering what I think is a straight and accurate account of those views, based on the Oxford University research, here
http://www.britishfuture.org/articles/commentary/immigration-the-way-forward/
To answer your various points:
I completely agree with you that reversing post-war immigration (I am trying to avoid tendentious words like “diversity”) would be a catastrophic process. And you are right that no society would normally choose to embark on that course. My point is that catastrophes happen – the population making up the islands that comprise the United Kingdom tends to experience a major catastrophe on average every 60 years or so (Second World War, First World War, Irish famine, Napoleonic Wars etc) and these events have the potential for devastating social breakdown unless there is a cohesiveness that can hold things together.
I do not think I have argued that post-war immigration should be reversed, I am looking at the logical implications if it is not – which leads me to ask three further questions:
1 How can democracy survive in the United Kingdom when such a fundamental social change has been forced through against the wishes of the majority and this unwanted social change is allowed to stand?
2 How can democracy survive in the United Kingdom when one political party has imported voters from abroad, told them they are “victims” that must have a special status in law, and bribed them with taxpayers money to vote in a particular way? (and does that not invalidate every government elected by such voters, and every decision taken by such governments).
3 How can democracy survive in the United Kingdom when ordinary people are afraid to talk about social changes that affect their lives and this fear is presented as proof that no-one is complaining?
Because you and I cannot see how post-war immigration might be reversed without a catastrophe does not mean it cannot be reversed, just that you and I do not have the intellectual capacity to conceptualise such a reversal.
You are possibly right to say that there is no actual official evidence that post war immigration was opposed by the electorate, but this reflects the fact that post-war successive governments were not interested in collecting or considering such evidence. Evidence of absence is not absence of evidence. In any case you could easily prove the fact one way or the other by doing a survey on historic attitudes to immigration and I am confident it would support what any trawl through the newspapers of the 1950s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s and today will tell you – in every test of opinion the population have said they do not want mass immigration.
You are mistaken in linking support for “diversity” with the Ipsos-Mori poll on the feel-good aspects of the London Olympics. Among the many consequences of mass immigration is an impact on the allocation of resources – who gets what, and why. Once you start to examine the process in those terms you will find support for “diversity” will evaporate.
When considering groups in society who are threatened with “eradication” (to use your inflammatory term) it is not by any means the immigrant communities who are under threat. For instance, the Republican Party in America is currently experiencing eradication, and this social cleansing has been met by triumphalist whoops from the left – triumphalism of the most alarming kind. Perhaps you can see the quandary that many serious thinkers are starting to find themselves in – either bring this process to a stop or face political extinction (and with that will come social extinction and cultural extinction)
You conclude by saying that only a minority would support the ending of mass immigration. Fine – let’s get some democratic endorsement for that view. A massive social change of the scale brought about by on-going mass immigration surely warrants serious discussion in the manifestos of the political parties at the 2015 general election.
Post a Comment